Author
Topic: What can we do? (Read 14173 times)

That's why web-links are generally not accepted in scholarly articles. They are unstable. Unfortunately, for a webpage that's meant to be accessible to the public, they're really the only convenient route, since the user isn't likely going to be signing up for a jounal account, or otherwise have access through a university; nor is the user going to be requesting a copy from a library somewhere. And so, when the source page gets taken offline for whatever reason, the link dies. Very unfortunate.

Fortunately, Google is our friend, so we can salvage these links from other sources...

This whole ID vs. evolution is something that has only been on my peripheral. At this point I want to learn more about what's going on. So again...thank you.

Yer Welcome!I really hate to have to talk about the ID stuff so much, it seems to just give credibility to the subject (some folks think that it does that is!)

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

. I'm glad to know you've rejected information before because this knowledge inspires me to ignore you rather than take any time conversing with you. I think that's a considerate move on the part of any mod.

Ok. Fine ya'll. I'll bail from this thread if you think I'm incapable of addressing this topic and am here just to waste your time. I would like to think that after almost 1100 posts that my interest in discussing some of these matters is genuine. I do my best. Sorry if I offended anyone.

A 1100 posts that have gone largely nowhere because you continually pretend that you have no idea of what everyone is telling you. Then leave and repeat the same stupidity. Not to mention the dodging and the constant lying. Yes, we do know how genuine your interest is. That's your problem.

Oh Jesus H Baldheaded Christ.

I wish there was a label to put under people's usernames to identify them for those of us who don't have a long history. I like to know if I'm talking with an atheist or a curious theist or an obnoxious theist with a sneak-attack tactic.

I wish there was a label to put under people's usernames to identify them for those of us who don't have a long history. I like to know if I'm talking with an atheist or a curious theist or an obnoxious theist with a sneak-attack tactic.

Hence my utter (and unapologetic) lack of respect for him.

You also see why I didn't want to go through all of that again and tried to head it off by holding him to backing up his claims.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

With all due respect, Jetson, these comments point to severe willful ignorance on your part. Probability is a branch of mathematics that you have just trivialized into a meaningless form of stupidity….. and I’m sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well educated people who would serve you up a good verbal lashing for your comments. Cripes, probability theory is even used in theoretical biology.

Except Jetson didn't trivialize probability. It's a known fact that the probability of an event becomes unity when it happens, regardless of whatever its probability was before it happened, and that's what he said. You cannot determine what its probability was before unless you can replicate the conditions of the event. So the guessing games creationists play with probability when it comes to evolution come much closer to trivializing probability than anything Jetson has said in this thread.

You really have not given much effort to examining ID science, have you. If you had, you would not be making comments like this. Furthermore, you are trashing a branch of mathematics for no reason other than to further your own personal agenda.

When ID advocates have actual science that they can publish which can withstand the scrutiny of the existing scientific community, then this might have merit. And you have no room to talk about someone "trashing a branch of mathematics" when you ignore the ridiculousness of ID probability "calculations" which are based on imaginary conditions developed through patently ridiculous assumptions.

Quote from: BibleStudent

It means that attempts to use the Human Genome project as a means of furthering the ToE have failed.

It means nothing of the sort. The Human Genome Project was never intended as a means of furthering the theory of evolution, or anything else along those lines. Like all science, it was an effort to further our knowledge, and like many discoveries, it requires us to reconsider our previous conclusions in the light of that new knowledge. However, that does not mean we throw everything we've concluded previously out and start from scratch, as you seem to think from this line ("attempts"..."have failed"). It means we modify those conclusions to account for the new information in order to come up with better conclusions.

So what it really means is that the Human Genome Project will increase our knowledge of human genetics and thus enhance our conclusions about the theory of evolution.

No one is saying the ToE has no validity. The dispute arises when proponents of evolution starting stretching what we know and have observed into things like micro=macro. That’s where things start getting tangled up.

No, the "dispute" arose when proponents of intelligent design/creationism tried to force evolution into artificial "micro" and "macro" distinctions. In reality, there is no dispute except that wholly artificial one. The fact is that enough "micro" changes will add up to a "macro" one, and no amount of razor-thin lines in the sand will change that.

Quote from: BibleStudent

Is it necessary that ID “works in application?” Here, again, we have the assertion that science is the supreme ruler and that no other discipline known to man is capable of providing legitimate hypotheses for the origin of life.

Yes, it certainly is necessary, otherwise you have a thought experiment which is practically useless. If you cannot demonstrate a hypothesis through its applications, it is useless for any practical purpose. Also, science isn't some "supreme ruler", it's just that there are no other disciplines that can reliably falsify a hypothetical conclusion.

Quote from: BibleStudent

Why does hypothesizing about the origin of life have to contribute to cures for disease or the growing of crops?

Same as above. Are you seriously suggesting that because ID science does not provide things like a cure for eye diseases that it should be summarily dismissed?

Unless you can show that intelligent design contributes something to the furtherance of human knowledge, then it's little more than useless philosophy.

Quote from: BibleStudent

Young minds form worthwhile skepticisms even in the biology classroom….particularly since, in my opinion, the ToE is not well supported by an ‘origin of life’ theory and, frankly, probably never will be. They know that the possibility of a Supreme Being (Creator) is real and deserve to know what thoughtful, educated minds can offer to support alternative views. In the end, they should be free to form their own personal conclusions based on what they deem to be valid arguments.

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but you shouldn't promote completely non-scientific ideas as science. If you can demonstrate the relevance of those ideas to actual science, then it's a different story, but until then, there's no point in pushing it.

Quote from: BibleStudent

Does this mean the observations and commentaries offered are incorrect, innaccurate, and formed strictly from presuppositions? If you find fault with the observations and arguments being made, then so be it….but to summarily dismiss them because they are not “original research” is being prejudicial, shortsighted, and biased.

You mean like all of the things you've summarily dismissed in this topic? Are you willing to admit that your attitude is prejudicial, shortsighted, and biased here? If you're not, then you are a hypocrite; if you are, then you should change it.

Quote from: BibleStudent

Yes, the ‘scientific method’….the supreme ruler of all there is to know about everything and anything. So sad.

There you go with this "supreme ruler" business again. Things like this are a perfect example of what I just mentioned about your attitude. Or do you think that saying such things does not indicate a prejudicial, shortsighted, and biased attitude on your part?

Quote from: BibleStudent

You should really spend more time examining ID science because you are asking questions that you wouldn’t be asking. Only you can decide if ID science is a valid alternative and make a personal decision on how these questions can be answered.

You can't claim intelligent design is science unless it meets the criteria to be called science. No amount of talk about "valid alternatives" or "personal decisions" can change that. That means you, or other intelligent design advocates, have to demonstrate that it's science to begin with, and you won't accomplish that with mocking comments or trying to claim that you shouldn't have to play by the same rules that other scientific theories do.

You can't have it both ways. If you want intelligent design to be treated as science, then you have to show that it's scientific. If you aren't willing or able to show that it's scientific, then you cannot call it science.

Just a nitpick. I think that a lot of you engaging in argument with BS, would agree with me that he does not know what a scientific paper looks like. Also, I am fairly certain you also understand that he does not possess the knowledge base to be able to read and understand a lot of the sort put out in journals of biology, physics..etc.

So, my nitpick is, why are you asking him to produce such a paper? Really. Why?

This all needs to be dialed back. Each chose a field of science, find an actual paper of the type you are asking for, complete with all required sections, from asbstract to conclusion/discussion, and walk him through what they look like. Then provide the contrast with one of the essays he posts.

Just a nitpick. I think that a lot of you engaging in argument with BS, would agree with me that he does not know what a scientific paper looks like. Also, I am fairly certain you also understand that he does not possess the knowledge base to be able to read and understand a lot of the sort put out in journals of biology, physics..etc.

This has been brought up before. However he continues to insist that he is extremely knowledgeable and knows all about evolution.

We know that he knows nothing about science. However he continues to insist otherwise.

In this thread PP linked a scientific paper about three pages back to show him the difference. It's been done in other threads as well.

That's the thing, we've been over all of this many many times in different threads. It's not that we haven't told him. It's that he intentionally ignores it and does not want to listen.

« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 07:24:36 PM by Alzael »

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

Perhaps every response should be: "no, that's not the type of paper I am asking for, here's another example of what they look like." not once, twice, but as many as it takes. But, if that is where he is at, that's what the discussion should focus on.

Perhaps every response should be: "no, that's not the type of paper I am asking for, here's another example of what they look like." not once, twice, but as many as it takes. But, if that is where he is at, that's what the discussion should focus on.

Maybe we can help answer the OP.

Isn't 1100 posts and three threads more than enough to waste on him? I could see doing what you suggest if he had ever once shown any interest in ever learning or correcting himself. Except that he hasn't shown that even once in his entire history. There is no hint of a discussion with him, just his repeated assertions and his failure to acknowledge anything that he doesn't want to hear.

Seriously, go back to some of the previous threads I linked and reread them. Do you really think we can discuss anything with him? Actually just read the ER thread.

The thing is that BS has probably been shown more lenience and tolerance than any other theist I've seen on here in all my time, and he's deserved it far less than most others.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

The problem is not that I have failed to provide evidence (because I most certainly have). The problem is that, like many others, I will not be hounded or bullied into bowing before the ideology you worship that dictates what type of evidence is acceptable and which is not. Your presuppositions have concocted a system that will only allow in what you deem to be credible and worthy. In your world, there is only one way of seeing things and that is through the goggles of what you perceive to be the only valid epistemic structure. It’s akin to tunnel vision driven by a high dose of arrogance and a superior sense of intellect which, ironically, is held in place by the same element of faith you are so critical of.

Your own worldview proclaims that there is no absolute truth yet you ridicule others because they do not subscribe to your subjective idea of how truth, if it did exist, should be derived. You apply a standard that completely contradicts the nature of the reality you perceive. You apply rules and boundaries with absolutely no way of knowing whether they are even capable of providing any reliable substance to the facts that you wave life a flag of glory. You do not and cannot possess an absolute truth by your own admission. The irony is that you are so filled with a sense of knowing what needs to be known and how to acquire that knowledge that you have effectively blinded yourself to the possibility that truth just might exist and that its discovery may come from evidence you will not allow into the system you believe is infallible.

The reality we live in is vast and full of mystery yet you treat it as though it can be discovered within the confines of a single worldview ruled solely by natural law. The truly devastating reality to all of this is that you have boxed yourself in and by proclaiming what is the equivalent of a Papal edict, you are discouraging the intellect, intuition, and creativity of people who would truly like to discover whether something else exists within and beyond our reality. I truly and genuinely feel for you. Not because you dismiss God, but because you have sold the undiscovered possibilities of reality down a river.

I was wondering when that was coming. It's been almost four pages since BS's last self-centered, ego-driven rant about how everyone else here is out to get him and absolutely wrong and brainwashed which is obviously why no one accepts his ideas.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

A quick review of your posting history reveals that you are a man on a mission. I was glad to see that I am not the only theist who has been the recipient of your ridicule and vile insults. In fact, based on what I saw, you treat every non-theist who wanders into this forum in the same disrespectful and inhumane way. You engage primarily in threads to unleash tirades against non-theists. There is a clear and consistent pattern of disturbing insults and accusations that include consistently calling people liars, incompetent, scum, idiots, dishonest, stupid…and on and on the list of derogatory and condescending remarks goes. There is truly no one else like you….at least not that I have ever encountered….EVER….and I’ve been around awhile. I have repeatedly tried to engage you in civil discussions but you will have none of it. It’s your way or the highway. Your approach is a direct reflection of this website’s integrity and ethics, especially given your designation as a moderator. I find it disturbing that that type of consistent and chronic behavior is condoned, much less tolerated.

A quick review of your posting history reveals that you are a man on a mission. I was glad to see that I am not the only theist who has been the recipient of your ridicule and vile insults. In fact, based on what I saw, you treat every non-theist who wanders into this forum in the same disrespectful and inhumane way. You engage primarily in threads to unleash tirades against non-theists. There is a clear and consistent pattern of disturbing insults and accusations that include consistently calling people liars, incompetent, scum, idiots, dishonest, stupid…and on and on the list of derogatory and condescending remarks goes. There is truly no one else like you….at least not that I have ever encountered….EVER….and I’ve been around awhile. I have repeatedly tried to engage you in civil discussions but you will have none of it. It’s your way or the highway. Your approach is a direct reflection of this website’s integrity and ethics, especially given your designation as a moderator. I find it disturbing that that type of consistent and chronic behavior is condoned, much less tolerated.

I'm guessing it was a very quick review of my posting history. With a lot of glance overs.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

The problem is not that I have failed to provide evidence (because I most certainly have). The problem is that, like many others, I will not be hounded or bullied into bowing before the ideology you worship that dictates what type of evidence is acceptable and which is not. Your presuppositions have concocted a system that will only allow in what you deem to be credible and worthy. In your world, there is only one way of seeing things and that is through the goggles of what you perceive to be the only valid epistemic structure. It’s akin to tunnel vision driven by a high dose of arrogance and a superior sense of intellect which, ironically, is held in place by the same element of faith you are so critical of.

Your own worldview proclaims that there is no absolute truth yet you ridicule others because they do not subscribe to your subjective idea of how truth, if it did exist, should be derived. You apply a standard that completely contradicts the nature of the reality you perceive. You apply rules and boundaries with absolutely no way of knowing whether they are even capable of providing any reliable substance to the facts that you wave life a flag of glory. You do not and cannot possess an absolute truth by your own admission. The irony is that you are so filled with a sense of knowing what needs to be known and how to acquire that knowledge that you have effectively blinded yourself to the possibility that truth just might exist and that its discovery may come from evidence you will not allow into the system you believe is infallible.

The reality we live in is vast and full of mystery yet you treat it as though it can be discovered within the confines of a single worldview ruled solely by natural law. The truly devastating reality to all of this is that you have boxed yourself in and by proclaiming what is the equivalent of a Papal edict, you are discouraging the intellect, intuition, and creativity of people who would truly like to discover whether something else exists within and beyond our reality. I truly and genuinely feel for you. Not because you dismiss God, but because you have sold the undiscovered possibilities of reality down a river.

This is really, really sad to read. Why is it that you refuse to rise to the standard of actual science when we're discussing science? Science does not give two shits about personal beliefs. It has a method, and a standard that must be met in order to be called science. This is not some dogmatic worldview that we hold when it comes to presenting real scientific research that supports the theory very well, versus apologetic bullshit whose sole purpose is to discredit science.

Yes, the world is filled with mystery, much of which scientists are hard at work trying to understand. But they are doing it by the only standard that works - the scientific method. Philosophy and apologetics just won't cut it. You have to understand this in order to have meaningful discussions. And scientists will be the first to admit the stuff they don't know. Will creationists do the same? Will they admit that whatever they believe happened, may be wrong? And when will they do their own science? When will they use the standard that is available to anyone willing to do the work, to show their own work?

When will the ID and Creationist camps actually do something to show how their ideas are supported? I mean, do you seriously want us to stop and consider religious beliefs and gods as a possible mechanism for life and for the evolution of life? Do you understand how important it is to be able to falsify a hypothesis, or a theory? It means that there must be a way to completely debunk the idea - and without that - what good is the idea? If you have no way of proving it false, then you simply don't have a worthy hypothesis. How does one prove God is false?

As a matter of fact, falsifying the theory of evolution is extremely easy. Just find something like a pre-cambrian rabbit! That's one of the old arguments that's been around awhile, but all it means is that the theory holds that certain species could not have been present at certain times, based on all current knowledge. So good scientific work that produces something completely out of whack with the theory, and that is followed by corroborated studies and science, is all it would take.

Take step back, and consider your entire experience here, and do some actual self-critical analysis. Look at what you have been saying, and really try to understand what we are saying. You are not in a class-room, where you are offered special courtesy, you're on an internet forum, where the rules are different, and the expectation is that when you make the types of assertions that you make, you will be expected to show how those assertions are supported, and by whom, and for what purpose.

Sadly for you though, real scientists have been waiting for any falsification of the theory of evolution from the creationists, and to date, there have been a total of 0 scientific, peer reviewed studies that give them pause. That would be zero. Why do you think that is?

I don't know if this will help you BibleStudent, but here goes anyways:

Here is an excellent, easy to read description of how science works from Berkeley. Starting with what’s in a scientific journal article and moving on to the peer review process. Back up to previous pages or go forward for explanation of hypothesis, theories, etc:

Here are some excerpts from a wiki article on the peer review process:

Quote

Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal. The work may be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected.

Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals.

Furthermore, the decision whether or not to publish a scholarly article, or what should be modified before publication, lies with the editor of the journal to which the manuscript has been submitted. Similarly, the decision whether or not to fund a proposed project rests with an official of the funding agency.

Reviewers are typically anonymous and independent, to help foster unvarnished criticism, and to discourage cronyism in funding and publication decisions.

In the case of proposed publications, an editor sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to researchers or scholars who are experts in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"), nowadays normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. Usually, there are two or three referees for a given article.

These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author; scientific journals observe this convention universally. The editor, usually familiar with the field of the manuscript (although typically not in as much depth as the referees, who are specialists), then evaluates the referees' comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal or level of the book and readership, before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments.

During this process, the role of the referees is advisory, and the editor is typically under no formal obligation to accept the opinions of the referees. Furthermore, in scientific publication, the referees do not act as a group, do not communicate with each other, and typically are not aware of each others identities or evaluations. There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus.

Specialized scientific journals such as the aforementioned chemistry journals, Astrophysical Journal, and the Physical Review series use peer review primarily to filter out obvious mistakes and incompetence, as well as plagiarism, overly derivative work, and straightforward applications of known methods. Different publication rates reflect these different criteria: Nature publishes about 5 percent of received papers, while Astrophysical Journal publishes about 70 percent. Some open access journals such as Biology Direct have the policy of making the reviewers' reports public by publishing the reports together with the manuscripts.

A conflict of interest arises when a reviewer and author have a disproportionate amount of respect (or disrespect) for each other. As an alternative to single-blind and double-blind review, authors and reviewers are encouraged to declare their conflicts of interest when the names of authors and sometimes reviewers are known to the other. When conflicts are reported, the conflicting reviewer is prohibited from reviewing and discussing the manuscript. The incentive for reviewers to declare their conflicts of interest is a matter of professional ethics and individual integrity.

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

The problem is not that I have failed to provide evidence (because I most certainly have). The problem is that, like many others, I will not be hounded or bullied into bowing before the ideology you worship that dictates what type of evidence is acceptable and which is not. Your presuppositions have concocted a system that will only allow in what you deem to be credible and worthy. In your world, there is only one way of seeing things and that is through the goggles of what you perceive to be the only valid epistemic structure. It’s akin to tunnel vision driven by a high dose of arrogance and a superior sense of intellect which, ironically, is held in place by the same element of faith you are so critical of.

Your own worldview proclaims that there is no absolute truth yet you ridicule others because they do not subscribe to your subjective idea of how truth, if it did exist, should be derived. You apply a standard that completely contradicts the nature of the reality you perceive. You apply rules and boundaries with absolutely no way of knowing whether they are even capable of providing any reliable substance to the facts that you wave life a flag of glory. You do not and cannot possess an absolute truth by your own admission. The irony is that you are so filled with a sense of knowing what needs to be known and how to acquire that knowledge that you have effectively blinded yourself to the possibility that truth just might exist and that its discovery may come from evidence you will not allow into the system you believe is infallible.

The reality we live in is vast and full of mystery yet you treat it as though it can be discovered within the confines of a single worldview ruled solely by natural law. The truly devastating reality to all of this is that you have boxed yourself in and by proclaiming what is the equivalent of a Papal edict, you are discouraging the intellect, intuition, and creativity of people who would truly like to discover whether something else exists within and beyond our reality. I truly and genuinely feel for you. Not because you dismiss God, but because you have sold the undiscovered possibilities of reality down a river.

I'm not in the mood to apologize for having standards. The nice thing about science is that it can prove stuff to be wrong as well as right. If you're going to diss and denounce a process that seems to us to be pretty darned good, you are going to need to come up with some equally plausible way of looking at the world that can compete with our beloved methodology.

Every time we put a christian into a corner he or she will mutter "God operates in mysterious ways" and at that point seems to think they proclaim themself the winner. Apparently (as per you) we do the same thing. I don't buy it, and you haven't done anything to convince me either. What you need to do is sit down, figure out a strategy that would reveal this unknowable truth to us, and then hit us upside the head with both barrels blazing in overdrive with a warp drive. Otherwise we're likely to continue our rational view of the planet, as distorted as you feel it is.

That you aren't impressed by the track record of science is fine. That you want to think that all the blanks have perfectly rational extra-reality explanations is fine. But to be surprised that not every person on the planet agrees with you is to be naive. Just plain naive. We atheists hang around here because we generally agree with each other and its fun to gang up on the know-it-alls of various persuasions that show up here. And while, like everybody else on the planet, each of us thinks we have things pretty well figured out, we like to think that our high opinions of ourselves are backed up by something other than myth and/or hopes. And because we can point to this study or that to validate our various ideas and opinions, the whole thing fits nicely with both our worldview and our experiences. The stuff you have proposed doesn't fit my reality in any way, and from the sounds of it, the other atheists here agree. I for one can't figure out how to include stuff that looks and feels and acts like nonsense into my world. I am open to each of your ideas if someone somewhere can show me a reason to seriously consider ID, but right now you might as well be arguing your point in the Hmong language because nothing you are saying makes any sense to me anyway.

When you speak with other christians and the subject of faith comes up, I trust that both of you can identify with the concept because each of you accepts it as a part of your life. Anyone who tries to talk of faith (in the religious context) with me is talking, in my world, nonsense. I have had no experience in my 60 years on this planet that resembles the faith of any religion, and the best I can do is accept that it is real to the christian telling me about it. And the mental contortions I would have to do to accept ID without any evidence other than the general mysteriousness of it all is also beyond me. Science or no science. How someone can say "Life as we know it is impossible, the odds against it are astronomical, so it must have been ID" is, in my head, saying that crude, basic and imperfect life generated by natural means is impossible but a sophisticated controller of things, god or otherwise, is completely understandable, or at least acceptable. And I just don't get it.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

The irony is that you are so filled with a sense of knowing what needs to be known and how to acquire that knowledge that you have effectively blinded yourself to the possibility that truth just might exist and that its discovery may come from evidence you will not allow into the system you believe is infallible.

BibleStudent, implicit in your statement I'm hearing a suggestion that you and other believers have an innate advantage over scientists in discovering this nebulous "truth."

I disagree. I feel that any truth worth knowing is discoverable by natural means and will leave a clear trail of empirical evidence that can be verified with proper scientific rigor. Subjective spiritual experiences can enrich one's life, but I see no way of accurately transmitting those subjective experiences from one person to another.

If there are any gods out there, I feel strongly that science, not religion, will ultimately reveal them. A genuine god has nothing to fear from skepticism and objective analysis.

Isn't 1100 posts and three threads more than enough to waste on him? I could see doing what you suggest if he had ever once shown any interest in ever learning or correcting himself. Except that he hasn't shown that even once in his entire history.

I am talking a frequency and tenacity with one specific thing at the foundation of his ignorance, from everyone. That way he has no thread to go to, no person to ignore in order to avoid dealing with the fact. I know, I know, he'll just leave the forum, then come back in a few months saying the exact same things debunked last time, as if nothing hapenned. I do know the subject. He also just might claim his definition of a scientific paper is valid, according to his "notes" (which, of course, are a great substitute for a university education in the sciences).

I'm also just trying to stay on topic for this thread. Which is "what would work with such a person?" I appreciate the feedback, and maybe Alkan will weigh in at some point too.

Teaching critical thinking and how the scientific method works is crucial. If the person seems open we can start there regardless of where the conversation begins. That way we have a foundation to work from. For instance before debating weather or not a paper is peer reviewed, we might explain the peer review process.Before saying that is not science, we should explain how science works.

We can recognize certain symptoms and adjust our approach accordingly. Although there are times when nothing we say will appear to change the persons mind, we don't know about what will happen to that person's thinking later. Also, someone may be lurking or following along and get some benefit from our efforts.

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

The problem is not that I have failed to provide evidence (because I most certainly have). The problem is that, like many others, I will not be hounded or bullied into bowing before the ideology you worship that dictates what type of evidence is acceptable and which is not.

No, the real problem is that you have a vested interest in demonstrating that your religious beliefs are solidly grounded in reality, so you are predisposed to only look seriously at evidence that supports your beliefs and to ignore or discredit evidence which does not. Regardless of whether any of that evidence meets reasonable standards for the field you are trying to argue about. This is akin to a 'lawyer' arguing that a tarot reading his client had performed should be entered as legal evidence in a trial, while forensic evidence such as DNA traces should be disallowed from it. And perhaps worst of all, you think this is a good thing.

Quote from: BibleStudent

Your presuppositions have concocted a system that will only allow in what you deem to be credible and worthy. In your world, there is only one way of seeing things and that is through the goggles of what you perceive to be the only valid epistemic structure. It’s akin to tunnel vision driven by a high dose of arrogance and a superior sense of intellect which, ironically, is held in place by the same element of faith you are so critical of.

You have no room to complain about presuppositions and faith, given that your belief system is anchored by them. Don't complain about the faults you perceive in others until you have dealt with the faults you don't perceive in yourself. What you do not understand is that you are describing your own system with the above quote, but attributing it to people who disagree with you, because you have refused to confront those tendencies in yourself. This is akin to a person seeing everyone else as easily angered while they patently ignore the fact that their own temper is the quickest to rouse.

Quote from: BibleStudent

Your own worldview proclaims that there is no absolute truth yet you ridicule others because they do not subscribe to your subjective idea of how truth, if it did exist, should be derived.

No. Any ridicule that comes about is due to frustration from dealing with people who repetitively insist, without any attempt to verify it, that they can "discern the truth" through methods which, (un)surprisingly, don't work consistently. When you can demonstrate that your own methods for deriving or discerning truth can be independently verified by people who do not subscribe to your belief system and can withstand rigorous testing for flaws, then you can complain about your methods not being accepted. Not before.

Quote from: BibleStudent

You apply a standard that completely contradicts the nature of the reality you perceive.

If the standards scientists use contradicted the nature of reality, those standards would have collapsed long ago and been replaced by standards that did not. That's how the scientific method works.

Quote from: BibleStudent

You apply rules and boundaries with absolutely no way of knowing whether they are even capable of providing any reliable substance to the facts that you wave life a flag of glory.

Except that those rules and boundaries are applied only after they are rigorously tested and verified by methods which can be independently confirmed. Therefore, we can be reasonably sure that they are accurate and reliable.

Quote from: BibleStudent

You do not and cannot possess an absolute truth by your own admission. The irony is that you are so filled with a sense of knowing what needs to be known and how to acquire that knowledge that you have effectively blinded yourself to the possibility that truth just might exist and that its discovery may come from evidence you will not allow into the system you believe is infallible.

In other words, "my religious beliefs might really be valid, but you refuse to even consider it because my evidence doesn't meet your standards". To put it bluntly, if your religious beliefs were as valid as you believe they are, you would be able to provide reliable evidence to demonstrate that fact. You would be able to show that prayer works reliably, instead of having to rationalize all the times when it doesn't work. And so on.

Quote from: BibleStudent

The reality we live in is vast and full of mystery yet you treat it as though it can be discovered within the confines of a single worldview ruled solely by natural law. The truly devastating reality to all of this is that you have boxed yourself in and by proclaiming what is the equivalent of a Papal edict, you are discouraging the intellect, intuition, and creativity of people who would truly like to discover whether something else exists within and beyond our reality. I truly and genuinely feel for you. Not because you dismiss God, but because you have sold the undiscovered possibilities of reality down a river.

There you go again, attributing the flaws of your own worldview to anyone and everyone else. The real irony in this is that the "truly devastating" reality you ascribe to those who use scientific methodology instead of "other methods" which nobody has been able to demonstrably verify doesn't even apply, because scientific methodology doesn't exclude anything people have not yet discovered. They just have to be able to demonstrate it, and have their discovery withstand rigorous testing. Compare that, if you would, to your own insistence that "micro-evolution" exists but "macro-evolution" does not, despite several people including myself pointing out that a bunch of small changes will eventually add up to large ones. You refuse to even consider that and cite "evidence" which to you disproves it, but is anything but convincing to the people you present it to. You're so fixated on the undiscovered possibilities that you believe science cannot consider that you're refusing to see things that science has actually discovered and confirmed because they don't support your belief system.

The problem is not that I have failed to provide evidence (because I most certainly have). The problem is that, like many others, I will not be hounded or bullied into bowing before the ideology you worship that dictates what type of evidence is acceptable and which is not. Your presuppositions have concocted a system that will only allow in what you deem to be credible and worthy. In your world, there is only one way of seeing things and that is through the goggles of what you perceive to be the only valid epistemic structure. It’s akin to tunnel vision driven by a high dose of arrogance and a superior sense of intellect which, ironically, is held in place by the same element of faith you are so critical of.

BS, you have failed to show that creationism/ID is a science. You have failed to provide evidence that supports creationism/ID. All of the nonsense about irreducible complexity, bastardizations of information theory, etc, have all been shown to fail, and you ignore every bit of information you’ve been given that demonstrates that. It is not a matter of being hounded or being bullied, it is a matter of you failing to do what you claim and a matter of you ignoring evidence that shows that you are wrong by attempting to ignore it. You will continue to be countered with facts no matter how many times you put up the same old creationist nonsense, no matter how you try to clothe it in science to make it more platable. You have yet to show that your “epistemic” structure is valid. I’m still waiting for this. Show me where your claims accurately describe reality, BS.

That you consider the truth bullying shows just how desperate you are.

It’s highly amusing to see you claim that atheists have presuppositions, when every single creationist/ID article you post is entirely based on the presupposition that a god exists and that it does something. You have claimed that we should follow where the evidence leads but *you* don’t do that nor do your creationist/ID authors. It seems that what we have here is classic projection in the psychological sense.

Quote

Your own worldview proclaims that there is no absolute truth yet you ridicule others because they do not subscribe to your subjective idea of how truth, if it did exist, should be derived. You apply a standard that completely contradicts the nature of the reality you perceive. You apply rules and boundaries with absolutely no way of knowing whether they are even capable of providing any reliable substance to the facts that you wave life a flag of glory. You do not and cannot possess an absolute truth by your own admission. The irony is that you are so filled with a sense of knowing what needs to be known and how to acquire that knowledge that you have effectively blinded yourself to the possibility that truth just might exist and that its discovery may come from evidence you will not allow into the system you believe is infallible.

Hmmm, who’s world view proclaims that there is no absolute truth? Not mine. However, I do know that no religious has any claim to absolute truth since they *all* fail to support their claims with evidence. I perceieve no reality that shows that any gods exists. There exists no evidence to support such claims, nothing to support creationism, nothing to support ID and nothing to support any religion, including yours, Christianity. Repeatedly, you forget that you are trying to claim that creationism/ID is just as scientific as evolutionary theory or astronomy when you say things like “You apply rules and boundaries with absolutely no way of knowing whether they are even capable of providing any reliable substance to the facts that you wave life a flag of glory.” You use those rules and boundaries that you claim are so very wrong every single day when you use the fruits of the science and scientific method you so obviously decry. The usual hypocrisy of a Christian is even more hilarious when they try to use science to prop up their pathetic faith. BS, you keep claiming that there is evidence to support your claims. So, if it’s evidence and if creationism/ID is every so science-y as you have claimed, then this evidence should have no problem being allowed and being shown to be an accurate reflection of reality. But you, and the creationists haven’t given any evidence that can past this test, now have they? Oh and of course, you’ve presented a nice little strawman to attack here too. Sorry, BS, but I’m not saying that I know everything. I am simply saying “put up or shut up” if you think that creationism/ID is as scientific as you have been claiming. All I’ve seen is someone who is so ignorant of science and so desperate for any real evidence at all to show his claims are correct that you accept anything creationist tells you with no thought at all. You are like them in you try to throw shit at a wall and hope that someone is stupid enough to let it stick. Unfortunately for you, in this age of information, people can find out your lies very easily.

Quote

The reality we live in is vast and full of mystery yet you treat it as though it can be discovered within the confines of a single worldview ruled solely by natural law. The truly devastating reality to all of this is that you have boxed yourself in and by proclaiming what is the equivalent of a Papal edict, you are discouraging the intellect, intuition, and creativity of people who would truly like to discover whether something else exists within and beyond our reality. I truly and genuinely feel for you. Not because you dismiss God, but because you have sold the undiscovered possibilities of reality down a river.

Nope, the reality we live in isn’t full of mystery. We’ve been chipping away at the willful ignorance of “Goddidit” for centuries now. You have fallen back to the usual theist nonsense of “we can’t known everything, so we shouldn’t evne try looking since Goddidit”. So much for your attempts to make religious nonsense all sciency. I figured it would happen and I was not disappointed. You, BS, live in the same worldview and the same natural laws and you have no problem in using the fruits of human research in work using those things you try to claim aren’t true. Since you can’t show one iota of evidence that your claims are true makes your nonsense about any “truly devastating reality” as worthless as any other theists. Ooh, I should be so skeered about baseless claims about Ganesha or Allah, or Odin. No one is trying to discourage any intellect or intuition or creativity, BS. If you can show your claims to be valid with evidence, we’ve been repeatedly asking you to do so and thus your claim that we have somehow “sold the undiscovered possibilities of reality down a river” is just one more lie. I’m waiting for evidence of this reality you claim, BS.

Funny how you try to claim to be so very, very interested in others’ opinions but you yourself don’t give any credence to claims of how Hinduism, or Wicca, Scientology, Mormonism, The New Church, Asatru, etc, is the real religion with its claims about what is within and beyond our reality. I haven’t seen anything true or genuine from you at all BS, only a Christian who is trying to hide his religion under a claim of Intelligent Design. BS, do you really think anyone buys this? I don’t. I haven’t seen anyone else on this forum that buys your bait and switch game. Judge Jones didn’t. Publishers of a book on creationism couldn’t even make sure they didn’t embarrass themselves with their inept proofing (I guess God didn’t care so much to let them see their mistake). Even ID supporters don’t buy it since they never try to convince anyone that aliens created life on earth with their papers. Nope, it’s just shell game created by people who evidently thought other people are as gullible as they are.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

These most recent comments continue to project a position on me that I have in no way taken. I am not criticizing or condemning science. Consider the simple fact that I have asserted that IDT employs the scientific model...the same one you endorse. A blatant and gross contradiction exists on my part if I profess the virtues of the scientific method out one side of my mouth and then level a condemnation against the field of science out of the other side. Makes no sense.

Remember what we’re talking about here as it pertains to the OP and let go of your perceptions that I am here to sell you on the God I believe in. I joined in the discussion merely to point out that any effort to train us ignorant and intellectually deficient theists that the ToE dismantles our beliefs would be dishonest. Further, it would be an effort that mirrors the very efforts you are so quick to accuse the theist of engaging in. (Interestingly, I asked in another thread for people to give me examples that demonstrated how theist efforts to promote an agenda were interfering with their life. I got limited answers and even the ones that were offered did not hold up under closer examination. They were unsubstantiated perceptions.)

Within this thread, I also provided links to websites that are reporting on some of the dishonesty and obfuscation coming out of the scientific community as respects the ToE.

In summary, my argument (in simplistic form) goes like this:

1. The ToE does not explain the origins of life nor does it attempt to yet it is continually and cleverly used as a means for suggesting that if the ToE is true, then abiogenesis is true. It goes even further than this, though, and claims abound that the fact of macroevolution is just as much a reality as microevolution. Just pick up any scholastic biology book and you will see what I mean. I provided a good example of this in another thread. And, please, don’t lecture me on the fact that micro vs. macro is a construct of us IDiots. You are not going to change my mind on this. I got into this discussion in another thread and suggested to that those who did not believe should me do a Google search. As I recall, no one could demonstrate that I was incorrect and I believe I received more than one response conceding that these terms are still being used, both inside and outside of the scientific community.

2. Abiogenesis as a means for explaining the origin of life is a hypothetical. To date, no scientific discovery has been made that explains how life arose from non-life. That is a fact.

3. The ToE is a falsifiable theory meaning it should NEVER be interpreted as a bulletproof explanation for evolution or any implication that it offers a reason for believing that abiogenesis occurred.

4. Given 1 - 3 above, people (particularly young ones) deserve to know these truths and they also deserve a level and fair playing field that offers alternative scientific views being offered, such as IDT.

Most people are hungry to discover the truth of humanity’s origins and how we have arrived where we are today. To be told that the science of the ToE and the future discovery of an abiogenesis event fully explains all of this is horribly dishonest. To further suggest that some effort is necessary to educate the ignorant masses of this un-truth is akin to the motives of a dictatorial empire.

If the ToE is truly falsifiable, then you are constrained by logic to concede that there could be an alternate view that explains what you feel the ToE and any abiogenesis hypothical explains. Rather than risk stifling people’s curiosity and the creativity that could potentially form new and innovative scientific hypotheses, let the ToE, abiogenesis, and Intelligent Design be taught and endorsed side-by-side. Let people make their own decisions. Don’t endorse efforts like those being suggested in the OP because it would be done so only to promote the agenda of a worldview that is admittedly incapable of presently offering an absolute truth…..and that is what people are looking for….a truth.

Within this thread, I also provided links to websites that are reporting on some of the dishonesty and obfuscation coming out of the scientific community as respects the ToE.

In summary, my argument (in simplistic form) goes like this:

1. The ToE does not explain the origins of life nor does it attempt to yet it is continually and cleverly used as a means for suggesting that if the ToE is true, then abiogenesis is true.

The ToE does not explain the origins of life because that is in the domain of abiogenesis. The fact that life exists suggest that abiogenesis is true. WHERE ELSE SHOULD SCIENCE BE PRESENTED IF NOT IN SCHOOLS?

Quote

2. Abiogenesis as a means for explaining the origin of life is a hypothetical. To date, no scientific discovery has been made that explains how life arose from non-life. That is a fact.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, true. There are several that explain how organic life could have arisen from inorganic matter, and that has already been pointed out to you. That is a fact.

Quote

3. The ToE is a falsifiable theory meaning it should NEVER be interpreted as a bulletproof explanation for evolution or any implication that it offers a reason for believing that abiogenesis occurred.

All theories are falsifiable. That is the self-correcting mechanism which makes the scientific method so successful at giving better and better explanations, and also makes it impossible for creation to be a scientific theory. Why ToE has survived for over 1oo years is because it is still the best explanation.

Quote

4. Given 1 - 3 above, people (particularly young ones) deserve to know these truths and they also deserve a level and fair playing field that offers alternative scientific views being offered, such as IDT.

The only way for young people to know these truths, is to be taught the scientific method and critical thinking, and they are already offered a level playing field. IDT is not an alternative scientific view, and that as been explained to you many times.

What is IDT? intelligent design is not a THEORY. IF YOU HAVE ONE, WHY WON'T YOU SAY WHAT IT IS?

Quote

If the ToE is truly falsifiable, then you are constrained by logic to concede that there could be an alternate view that explains what you feel the ToE and any abiogenesis hypothical explains.

Of course logic dictates this. That is what we have been trying to tell you!

EDIT: typos

« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 11:31:16 AM by monkeymind »

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

BTW, BS: Since you are so confident that you know what you are talking about, and that your son will use reason and logic to arrive at the best conclusion about this, why not have Junior join in on the conversation? Or just sit back and watch.

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.